LexQAMAR JAHAN AN DANOTHER versus NISAR AHMAD TYAGI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 793 QAMARJAHANANDANOTHER v. NISARAHMAD TYAGI AND OTHERS· (Civil Appeal Nos. 76-77 of2011) A MARCH 24, 2015. B [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986- s. 13( 4)(iiQ- Complaint before National Commission - The Commission closed the right to file rejoinder and also right to file affidavit in chief C examination on the ground of delay in filing rejoinder and dismissed the complaint for want of evidence - Held: The question of affidavit in chief examination arises only after the pleadings are complete - Due to non-filing of the rejoinder, the National Commission, at best could have forfeited the D permission to file rejoinder and should have granted opportunity to lead the evidence holding that in absence of the rejoinder, the pleadings would be deemed to be complete - Therefore, though the complainants are not entitled to file E rejoinder, THEY are entitled to lead evidence and hence can file the affidavit in terms of s.13(4)(iii)-Appeals allowed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 76- 77 of 2011. F From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2010 in 0. P. No. 102 of 2000 and order dated 29.10.2010 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Miscellaneous Application No. 859 of2010 in Original Petition No. 102 of2000. G Qamar Jahan (Appellant-In-Person). Vinay Garg, Tanmay Agarwal, Uday Singh, for the Respondents. 793 H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 3 S.C.R. A The following Judgment of the Court was delivered 1. The appellants filed a complaint (Original Petition No. 102 of 2000) before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'National B Commission'). 2. The issue pertains to the alleged medical negligence in treating the husband of the first appellant. It is seen, that respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint had filed their c response to the complaint, and the appellants have also filed rejoinder thereto. As far as respondent nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, it appears, notice of the complaint was served on them only towards the end of the year 2009. They have filed their reply on 14.1.2010. Thereafter, several opportunities were D given to the appellants to file rejoinder to the reply filed by opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in the complaint. Finally, on 26.07.2010, the National Commission, vide its impugned order, dismissed the complaint for want of evidence. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: E F G H "Complaint was filed in the year 2000 and despite repeated orders passed on the said dates the complainants have failed to file rejoinder to the written version of Ops 3 and 4 and their affidavits of evidence. It is a case of medical negligence, Sri Pattjoshi states that further time may be allowed to the complainants to do the needful. However, we are not inclined to grant further time to the complainants. Right to file rejoinder and affidavits of evidence is closed. Since there is no evidence in support of the complaint the complaint is dismissed for want of evidence. There is hardly any occasion to allow Sri Pattjoshi to argue the complaint. No order as to costs." QAMAR JAHAN V. NISARAHMAD TYAGI 795 3. Thereafter, the appellants filed miscellaneous A application no. 859 of 2010 requesting the National Commission to recall the aforesaid order dated 26.7.2010. That application was also dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2010. The said order reads as under: "Complainants have filed this application for recalling the order dated 26. 7 .2010 whereby the complaint was dismissed which is being contested by opposite parties no. 3 and 4. We have heard the parties counsel B and have been taken through the order dated C 26.7 .2010. This order would showthatfor the reason disclose in details in the order itself the evidence of the complainant was closed and the complaint was, therefore, dismissed for want of evidence. For the reasons recorded in the order itself, we are not D inclined to recall the said order and restore the ~ - complaint to its number. Application is accordingly dismissed." 4. Hence, these appeals have been filed before this Court E at the instance of the appellants under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, assailing the impugned orders passed by the National Commission dated 26.7.2010 and 29.10.2010. 5. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are not represented before this Court. Howev
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.